Telangana High Court
M/S. Shriram General Ins. Com. Ltd., Hyd vs Sri Islavath Ramu, Hyd And Ano on 19 June, 2025
THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.965 OF 2013
JUDGMENT:
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed aggrieved by the
order dated 23.08.2013 passed in W.C.No.251 of 2011 on the
file of the Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation and
Deputy Commissioner of Labour-I, Hyderabad (for short ‘the
Commissioner’).
2. Heard Mrs. T.Padmaja, learned counsel representing
Mr. S.Harinath Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the
appellant. There is no appearance on behalf of respondent
Nos.1 and 2, in spite of notice being served.
3. Brief facts:
The appellant herein is the opposite party No.2
(Insurance Company) and respondents herein are the
opposite party No.1 (owner of the vehicle) and applicant
before the Commissioner. The applicant claims to be a
workman (labourer/helper) employed by opposite party No.1
on vehicle bearing No.AP 29 BF 7840. On 28.06.2011, when
the lorry was proceeding towards Haliya of Nalgonda District,
2
JAK, J
C.M.A.No.965_2013at about 09:30 a.m., when the lorry reached Peddavoora
Village outskirts, the driver drove the vehicle in a rash and
negligent manner, due to which, the vehicle turned turtle
and the applicant received grievous injuries over the body.
Initially, he was taken to Government K.N. Hospital,
Nagarjunasagar, for treatment and later shifted to Mother
Theresa Hospital, Devarakonda. A case in Cr.No.72 of 2011
under Sections 337 and 304A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for
short ‘IPC‘) was registered.
3.1 The lorry was insured by opposite party No.1 vide
insurance policy bearing No.1000/31/11/280098, valid from
10.11.2010 to 09.11.2011. The applicant claims that he was
being paid monthly wages of Rs.8,000/- and Rs.100/- per
day towards batta by opposite party No.1 at the time of
accident and claims an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- as
compensation against opposite party Nos.1 and 2 jointly and
severally.
3.2 Learned Commissioner examined AWs.1 and 2 as
witnesses for applicant and RW.1 for opposite party No.2.
Exs.A1 to A12 were marked on behalf of applicant and Ex.B1
3
JAK, J
C.M.A.No.965_2013
on behalf of opposite party No.2. Learned Commissioner,
having considered the evidence on record, awarded a
compensation of Rs.2,80,192/- along with interest @ 12%
per annum from 29.07.2011 till the date of realization. The
amount was directed to be paid by opposite party Nos.1 and
2 (jointly and severally) within 30 days from the date of
receipt of the order. Challenging the said order, opposite
party No.2 (Insurance Company) filed the present appeal.
4. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of
appellant-Insurance Company submitted that applicant was
not a labourer/helper on the said vehicle. That no evidence
was adduced on behalf of applicant to substantiate the
contention that he was employed by opposite party No.1
drawing a monthly wage of Rs.8,000/- (along with batta @
Rs.100/- per day). It is further submitted that on the date of
accident, the applicant was sitting on the top of the lorry
cabin along with two others and when the lorry reached the
outskirts of Peddavoora Village, it turned turtle due to rash
and negligent driving of the driver and applicant fell from top
of lorry cabin and sustained injuries. It is also submitted
4
JAK, J
C.M.A.No.965_2013
that Insurance Company is not liable to pay amount, as the
applicant was not a cleaner/labourer/ helper on the lorry
and that the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, cannot
come to the rescue of gratuitous passenger.
4.1 It is submitted that the rate of interest awarded by the
Commissioner is on the higher side and granting interest @
12% per annum would prejudice the Insurance Company. It
is further submitted that RW.1 (employee of Insurance
Company) in his evidence denied that basic premium covers
the risk of all the employees, in spite of the denial,
Commissioner awarded compensation on the ground that
Insurance Company is liable to compensate the injured, as
the lorry was covered under insurance policy. It is also
submitted that Commissioner erred in coming to the
conclusion that there was an employer-employee relationship
between the owner (opposite party No.1) and the applicant.
That the award of the Commissioner be set aside and that
the rate of interest be reduced.
5. There is no representation on behalf of respondents, in
spite of service of notice. Accident occurred in the year 2011,
5
JAK, J
C.M.A.No.965_2013
W.C. is of the year 2011, order of the Commissioner is dated
23.08.2013 and C.M.A is of the year 2013. 12 years have
lapsed, there is no representation on behalf of respondents
in spite of service of notice. This Court is not inclined to
further adjourn the matter and intends to pass order on
merits.
6. Heard learned Standing Counsel for the appellant,
perused the record.
7. On 28.06.2011, the applicant suffered injuries, when
he fell from lorry bearing No.AP 29 BF 7840 at the outskirts
of Peddavoora village. Initially, he was treated in Government
K.N. Hospital, nagarjunasagar and later shifted to Mother
Theresa Hospital, Devarakonda and was admitted as an in-
patient from 28.06.2011 to 15.07.2011. During the
treatment, his three toes of right foot were amputated. It is
not in dispute that accident occurred on 28.06.2011, as on
the date of the accident, lorry was insured vide insurance
policy bearing No.1000/31/11/280098, valid from
10.11.2010 to 09.11.2011. An FIR bearing No.72 of 2011
came to be registered on 28.06.2011 and the Charge Sheet is
6
JAK, J
C.M.A.No.965_2013
filed before Judicial First Class Magistrate, Miryalaguda. In
the FIR, Charge Sheet, claim petition and chief affidavit, the
applicant stated that he was a labourer of the said vehicle. In
the discharge slip of the hospitals, where the applicant was
treated, it is noted that he was a labourer. The
Commissioner, on the basis of the documents, was of the
opinion that he was a labourer on vehicle bearing No.AP 29
BF 7840, the said finding is recorded at paragraph No.16 of
the order of the learned Commissioner.
8. The Hon’ble Apex Court, while dealing with the scheme
of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, in Golla
Rajanna and Others Vs. Divisional Manager and
another 1, held as follows:
“10. Under the scheme of the Act, the Workmen’s
Compensation Commissioner is the last authority on
facts. The Parliament has thought it fit to restrict the
scope of the appeal only to substantial questions of law,
being a welfare legislation. Unfortunately, the High
Court has missed this crucial question of limited
jurisdiction and has ventured to re-appreciate the
evidence and recorded its own findings on percentage of
disability for which also there is no basis. The whole
exercise made by the High Court is not within the
competence of the High Court under Section 30 of the
Act.”
1
(2017) 1 SCC 45
7
JAK, J
C.M.A.No.965_2013
9. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Golla Rajanna (supra) held
that under the scheme of Workmen’s Compensation Act,
1923, the Commissioner is the last authority on facts. Said
proposition of law if made applicable to the present facts of
case, wherein Commissioner recorded that the applicant
herein was a labourer, this Court cannot disturb the finding
of the Commissioner, unless it is shown that the finding is
perverse in nature. It is observed from the record that
Insurance Company collected premium of Rs.800/- towards
basic third party cover and the applicant is held by the
Commissioner to be a third party. Risk of the applicant is
covered by a premium of Rs.25/-, to cover the risk of other
employee i.e., personnel employed over and above the
permitted employees. As per Section 147(1) Proviso (i) (c), the
Insurance Company is statutorily liable for the amount of
compensation arising from the provisions of workmen’s
Compensation Act, 1923, to the employees of the insured
(maximum permitted employees of 7 as per Rule 252 of A.P.
Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989) and the insured need not pay
any additional premium for the statutory liability of the
8
JAK, J
C.M.A.No.965_2013
insurer for the compensation of the employees carried in
goods vehicle.
10. Having discussed the entire Section 147 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, at length, in relation to the liability under
the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, the Commissioner
held that as per the terms and conditions of the insurance
policy, opposite party No.2-Insurance Company is bound to
indemnify the requirements of the liability under Workmen’s
Compensation Act, 1923.
11. In view of the detailed discussion of Commissioner with
regard to the liability of the Insurance Company, this Court
cannot disturb the findings of the Commissioner, as it is a
valid consideration of both the liability of Insurance
Company and the fact that the applicant was labourer/
helper/workmen under the Workmen Compensation Act,
1923.
12. As far as the interest rate is concerned, the interest @
12% p.a. is reasonable, it is not on the higher side. It is trite
to take note of the fact that Commissioner is entitled to grant
9
JAK, J
C.M.A.No.965_2013
the interest on the compensation amount as per the
prevailing rates. No effort has been made to show that
interest @ 12% p.a. is on the higher side. On the other hand,
this Court has come across a number of orders of the
Commissioner, wherein interest @ 12% p.a. has been
granted, which is not excessive, taking into consideration the
fact that the Statue under which interest is being paid is a
welfare legislation. Commissioner substantiated the order by
placing reliance on the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in
Pratap Narain Singh Deo Vs. Srinivas Sabata and
another 2 and Valsala Vs. Kerala State Electricity Board 3
on the issue of payment of interest on the amount of
compensation, wherein it was held that interest starts
accruing one month from the date of accident, but not from
the date of filling the application or from the date of the
order. After considering the said judgments, the
Commissioner was of the view that interest @ 12% per
annum be granted from 31st day of the accident till the date
of realization.
2
(1976) 1 SCC 289
3
(1999) 8 SCC 254
10
JAK, J
C.M.A.No.965_2013
13. No substantial question of law arises, Commissioner’s
order is neither perverse nor illegal. This Court does not find
any infirmity in the order of the Commissioner, no
interference is necessitated.
14. For reasons aforesaid, Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is
devoid of merits, is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly
dismissed. No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
___________________________
ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J
Date:19.06.2025
KRR
11
JAK, J
C.M.A.No.965_2013
THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.965 OF 2013
Date:19.06.2025
KRR